similar to: Mailing list address harvested for spamming

On 02/12/2018 05:31, M. Balridge wrote: > Quoting dovecot-e51 at deemzed.uk: > >> Not to stir the pot, but I notice my email address has recently been >> harvested from this list for spamming purposes. This email address is >> unique and not used for anything else. >> >> I'd distinguish this from spam sent to the mailing list itself, which is >>

Quoting dovecot-e51 at deemzed.uk: > Not to stir the pot, but I notice my email address has recently been > harvested from this list for spamming purposes. This email address is > unique and not used for anything else. > > I'd distinguish this from spam sent to the mailing list itself, which is > obviously different. > > Is there anything further that could be done

On Sun, Dec 02, 2018 at 10:09:02AM +1000, Noel Butler wrote: > On 02/12/2018 05:31, M. Balridge wrote: > > > Quoting dovecot-e51 at deemzed.uk: > > > >> Not to stir the pot, but I notice my email address has recently been > >> harvested from this list for spamming purposes. This email address is > >> unique and not used for anything else. >

On 07/11/2017 14:18, Mathieu R. wrote: > Maybe i got no answer because there is an error which seem obvious in my > logs : > > Nov 4 20:57:55 vps81550 dovecot: auth: Fatal: sql: driver not set in > configuration file /etc/dovecot/dovecot-sql.conf.ext This might sound silly, but in your doveconf you have: passdb { args = /etc/dovecot/dovecot-sql.conf.ext driver = sql } Yet

Just a warning to dovecot listmembers. The list is being harvested. test3943395 is a unique address I created only for communication to the dovecot list. The following spam came from: Received: from dial-dynamic-62-69-52-187.surfdial.murphx.net (dial-dynamic-62-69-52-187.surfdial.murphx.net [62.69.52.187]) by sasami.anime.net (8.11.6/8.11.6) with SMTP id j7FLxtv03775 for

On 12/01/2018 04:09 PM, Noel Butler wrote: > > Which is why it annoys me that some people on mailing lists feel the > need to reply directly, rather than through mailing list. Sometimes it is the MUA that is poorly designed that causes this. Also, some lists set the "reply to" with the sender rather than the list. Further, some user agents have a separate "reply"

On 02/12/2018 10:16, Michael A. Peters wrote: > On 12/01/2018 04:09 PM, Noel Butler wrote: > >> Which is why it annoys me that some people on mailing lists feel the need to reply directly, rather than through mailing list. > > Sometimes it is the MUA that is poorly designed that causes this. I could have sworn I said that, oh yes, I see I did > Also, some lists set the

On 12/01/2018 05:00 PM, Hendrik Boom wrote: > > There's an extensive email etiquette post somewhere on the net > explaining why setting 'reply-to' to the list is a bad idea. > > Reply-to is intended for the sender to explain that replies shouldn't > be sent to the obvious sending address, but to another address. > This is essential if, say, the sender is

* Michael A. Peters: > Netiquette posts are just someone's opinion, and they often don't take > into account the vastly different way different types of minds work. Mailing list netiquette has been around for decades, for good reasons. If Joe User's mind "works differently", Joe needs to make the effort to adapt to existing conventions instead of expecting conventions

On 02/12/2018 03:05, Michael A. Peters wrote: [...] > But - I would wager that over 95% of the time when someone hits the > reply button on a list post, their intent is to reply to the list. Even if it's 99%: What is the lesser risk if someone get's it wrong? Apart from the situation that people send mails over the mailing list with "for X.Y." in the subject and no one

On Sun, Dec 02, 2018 at 04:22:52PM +0100, Ralph Seichter wrote: > * Ruben Safir: > > > On Sun, Dec 02, 2018 at 03:58:53AM +0100, Bernd Petrovitsch wrote: > > > >> Let's hope that people who do not know how to use a tool - e.g. > >> like a hammer - doesn't use that tool in the first place .... > > > > that is pretty unrealistic and I

* Ruben Safir: > On Sun, Dec 02, 2018 at 03:58:53AM +0100, Bernd Petrovitsch wrote: > >> Let's hope that people who do not know how to use a tool - e.g. >> like a hammer - doesn't use that tool in the first place .... > > that is pretty unrealistic and I don't agree with it anyway. The tool metaphor is realistic. In my experience (which dates back to the

On 02/12/2018 11:00, Hendrik Boom wrote: > There's an extensive email etiquette post somewhere on the net > explaining why setting 'reply-to' to the list is a bad idea. Lots of posts around about this, all self serving :) There may of course be an RFC floating around, but I admit to never having bothered to look, because good netizens reply to list, lists are public, they

On Sun, Dec 02, 2018 at 03:58:53AM +0100, Bernd Petrovitsch wrote: > On 02/12/2018 03:05, Michael A. Peters wrote: > [...] > > But - I would wager that over 95% of the time when someone hits the > > reply button on a list post, their intent is to reply to the list. > > Even if it's 99%: What is the lesser risk if someone get's it wrong? > > Apart from the

There seems to be a bug with RFC822 processing in ltmp proxying that doesn't quote local parts that, for example, contain spaces. director config: director_username_hash = %Ln lmtp_proxy = yes recipient_delimiter = + protocol lmtp { auth_socket_path = director-userdb auth_username_chars = auth_username_format = %Ln passdb {

On 12/01/2018 05:49 PM, Ralph Seichter wrote: > * Michael A. Peters: > >> Netiquette posts are just someone's opinion, and they often don't take >> into account the vastly different way different types of minds work. > > Mailing list netiquette has been around for decades, for good reasons. > If Joe User's mind "works differently", Joe needs to

A spammer claiming to be '"Tim Saarela" <tim.saarela at dovecot.fi>' is sending out a pitch for "Enterprise Level Support" for Dovecot. The address of mine which he hit is only ever used for this mailing list, so it is clear that whatever the mechanism, this list is being harvested for commercial leads.

On 26/10/2017 18:38, Alexander Dalloz wrote: > Am 26.10.2017 um 12:20 schrieb David Zambonini: >> >> There seems to be a bug with RFC822 processing in ltmp proxying that >> doesn't >> quote local parts that, for example, contain spaces. > > Newer related RFCs are RFC 5321 and 5322. Typo, meant to say RFC2822, which they still supercede, not that the

Hi, I have the following symptoms: Call X-lite / Nokia E51 X-lite press hold: Nokia DOES hear MOH Nokia press hold: X-lite does NOT hear MOH Call X-lite / SCCP phone MOH works as supposed Call SCCP phone / Nokia E51 SCCP press hold: Nokia DOES hear MOH Nokia press hold: X-lite does NOT hear MOH In addition, the BLF on the SCCP phones does NOT show the hinted SIP extension on hold. With 1.4

Roger Marquis wrote: > [snip] > >It takes all of 2 seconds to generate a ssh 2 new session on a >500Mhz cpu (causing less than 20% utilization). Considering that >99% of even the most heavily loaded servers have more than enough >cpu for this task I don't really see it as an issue. > >Also, by generating a different key for each session you get better >entropy,